This might be, I hope, a catalyst for positive change. It's about time the shell was really decoupled from the OS. Well, as mainstream. If enough people dislike it, perhaps it'll finally become standard to use alternate shells, and we'll end up with flexibility and standardization.

It's not that I'm necessarily looking for much flexibility, but non-flexibility hasn't proven itself. Windows Explorer was always a rather poor/slow/clunky/unruly file manager, and Start Menu was lacking as well.

Another problem is Microsoft changing ideas about how the GUI should work, and people having the accept an unwanted GUI change even if they just want the better core. Sure, there were positive changes, but also negative ones ever since the Win9x to NT5 shift.

The shell is fine, just allow some customization that reflects the differences in environments of Desktops/Workstations and Tablets/Phones. One size can fit all, if it is flexible. Sadly Windows 8's current shell is not flexible. Ironically it's more Apple than ever before.

My main complaint about making completely different shells is the Linux fiasco, which is a royal pain in the ass. Download "Mint", oh but do you want Cinnamon, MATE, KDE, or Xfce flavor? Get serious Linux, the distro should come ONE WAY, not FOUR WAYS. I like Mint, really I do, but Linux will never be taken seriously as long as it continues to be the neverending exercise in anarchy that it is. Linux - Anarchy Inside.

Windows works mainstream because shit is STANDARD, but allows power users to customize most everything, provided they have the expertise or skill to do so. This keeps support costs and learning curves the same across the market.

Apple works mainstream because you get it only one way, like it or not. This ticks off corporations and power users, but the average joe isn't savy enough to notice or care. Proof of this is the wildly popular iOS devices.

quote: My main complaint about making completely different shells is the Linux fiasco,

I guess this is the old "one person's rubbish is another person's opportunity" analogy. There are Linux distributions that, probably for lack of resources, come with just one desktop. A desktop is an interface, it's part of the veneer between you and the applications that you want to run on your computer. Why do you believe having a choice of desktops is a sign of a poor operating system? Some would consider the growing presence of malware targeting Windows (and the need for third party software as protection from it) as the glaring sign of a poor and poorly maintained operating system, but I'm sure to you it's the sign of a successful marketing strategy.I can't see how people like ... no, ... love Windows so much that they are willing to put up with all the antivirus - malware nonsense (or did the world change after Windows XP?) and constant fiddling around just to keep Windows working. Isn't the point of a desktop to help you use your computer?

For Linux, the desktop environment can be anything you want. Most will standardise. Ubuntu standardised on its custom Unity shell. The other standards commonly used are Gnome and KDE. None of the three are particularly hard to pick up if coming from Windows.

People forget that since Linux is open sourced, it has a myriad of desktop options. There is literally no way to enforce a single desktop option short of refusing to distribute it (which is merely an inconvenience since someone will just stick up the needed packages for download).

If anything, Linux has fallen into a similar trap to Windows 8. Ubuntu's Unity was designed for tablets. They've had to spent time polishing, changing and tweaking it to make it tolerable for desktop users and, even then, it remains a divisive feature with people migrating to Mint (which has something closer to the neat and simple Gnome 2.0 experience).

I would put the range of desktop options down to the GPL2 licence, not that the software is open source, although being open source does help.You are right, most distributions do use one of the mainstream desktops.The question, though, is why Master Kenobi (and others) consider this a sign of a bad OS?

Think for a second that you're a large company and want your software to work on Linux. Ubuntu has Unity, OpenSuse has KDE, Fedora has Gnome and so on. Where do you start? What do you target?I think that was his point. I wouldn't call that a fiasco, because I love KDE and others swear by Gnome, Xfce, etc. No other OS will give you this freedom. And yes, freedom has drawbacks, but it's always the better choice, imho.